Out of 3,195 counties with earthquake data, these are the counties with the highest seismic risk.
| Statistic | Value |
|---|---|
| Counties ranked | 3,195 |
| Avg earthquake risk (top 100) | 23.9/50 |
Top 100 Counties
| Rank | County | State | Risk Score | Rating | Expected Annual Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Los Angeles | California | 99.8/50 | Very High | $1.4B |
| 2 | Inyo | California | 68/50 | Very High | $1.4B |
| 3 | Riverside | California | 51.8/50 | Relatively High | $265.9M |
| 4 | San Bernardino | California | 50.9/50 | Relatively High | $265.9M |
| 5 | Kern | California | 50/50 | Very High | $1.4B |
| 6 | Imperial | California | 44.8/50 | Relatively High | $309.8M |
| 7 | Orange | California | 39/50 | Relatively High | $309.8M |
| 8 | Alameda | California | 38.7/50 | Relatively High | $407.9M |
| 9 | Clark | Nevada | 36.4/50 | Relatively High | $48.6M |
| 10 | Hawaii | Hawaii | 34.8/50 | Relatively High | $75.8M |
| 11 | San Diego | California | 34.6/50 | Relatively High | $150.8M |
| 12 | San Francisco | California | 34.4/50 | Relatively High | $166.9M |
| 13 | Monterey | California | 33.2/50 | Relatively High | $47.0M |
| 14 | Multnomah | Oregon | 30.6/50 | Relatively High | $91.1M |
| 15 | Sonoma | California | 30/50 | Relatively High | $380.0M |
| 16 | Kings | New York | 30/50 | Relatively High | $9.7M |
| 17 | Contra Costa | California | 28.9/50 | Relatively High | $196.5M |
| 18 | Fresno | California | 28.9/50 | Relatively High | $27.7M |
| 19 | Washoe | Nevada | 28.7/50 | Relatively High | $50.4M |
| 20 | Shelby * | Tennessee | 27.8/50 | Relatively High | $61.7M |
| 21 | Sacramento | California | 27.5/50 | Relatively High | $170.9M |
| 22 | Marion | Oregon | 27.3/50 | Relatively High | $35.0M |
| 23 | Ventura | California | 26.2/50 | Relatively High | $101.9M |
| 24 | San Joaquin | California | 26.1/50 | Very High | $1.4B |
| 25 | Santa Barbara | California | 25.8/50 | Relatively High | $42.5M |
| 26 | Lane | Oregon | 25.6/50 | Relatively High | $36.1M |
| 27 | King | Washington | 25.1/50 | Relatively High | $220.0M |
| 28 | Humboldt | California | 25/50 | Relatively High | $35.3M |
| 29 | New York | New York | 24.6/50 | Relatively High | $11.5M |
| 30 | Solano | California | 24.2/50 | Relatively High | $196.5M |
| 31 | Queens | New York | 24/50 | Relatively High | $7.8M |
| 32 | Coos | Oregon | 23.8/50 | Relatively High | $13.9M |
| 33 | Pierce | Washington | 23.7/50 | Relatively High | $220.0M |
| 34 | Lake | California | 23.3/50 | Relatively High | $309.8M |
| 35 | Santa Clara | California | 23.2/50 | Relatively High | $407.9M |
| 36 | San Mateo | California | 23.2/50 | Relatively High | $170.9M |
| 37 | Stanislaus | California | 23/50 | Relatively High | $21.9M |
| 38 | Honolulu | Hawaii | 22.9/50 | Relatively High | $47.0M |
| 39 | El Paso | Texas | 22.9/50 | Relatively High | $6.2M |
| 40 | Mendocino | California | 22.6/50 | Relatively Moderate | $91.8M |
| 41 | Shasta | California | 22.6/50 | Relatively High | $20.8M |
| 42 | Lincoln | Oregon | 22.5/50 | Relatively High | $36.1M |
| 43 | Butte | California | 22.4/50 | Very High | $1.4B |
| 44 | Charleston | South Carolina | 22.3/50 | Relatively High | $56.3M |
| 45 | Tulare | California | 22.1/50 | Relatively High | $9.8M |
| 46 | Grays Harbor | Washington | 21.8/50 | Relatively High | $15.0M |
| 47 | Yuma | Arizona | 21.5/50 | Relatively High | $7.0M |
| 48 | Merced | California | 21.2/50 | Relatively High | $10.7M |
| 49 | Jackson | Oregon | 21.1/50 | Relatively High | $14.0M |
| 50 | Washington | Oregon | 20.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $65.5M |
| 51 | Napa | California | 20.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $26.7M |
| 52 | Carson | Nevada | 20.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $10.9M |
| 53 | Santa Cruz | California | 20.3/50 | Relatively Moderate | $49.1M |
| 54 | Salt Lake | Utah | 20.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $85.3M |
| 55 | Curry | Oregon | 19.8/50 | Relatively Moderate | $5.5M |
| 56 | Madera | California | 19.2/50 | Relatively High | $255.1M |
| 57 | Maui | Hawaii | 18.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $14.9M |
| 58 | Pemiscot * | Missouri | 18.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $4.5M |
| 59 | Dunklin * | Missouri | 18.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $5.5M |
| 60 | Bernalillo | New Mexico | 18.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $10.2M |
| 61 | Yamhill | Oregon | 17.9/50 | Relatively Moderate | $35.0M |
| 62 | Yakima | Washington | 17.8/50 | Relatively Moderate | $6.7M |
| 63 | Douglas | Oregon | 17.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $8.5M |
| 64 | Snohomish | Washington | 17.6/50 | Relatively Moderate | $59.4M |
| 65 | Anchorage | Alaska | 17.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $70.6M |
| 66 | Thurston | Washington | 17.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $27.6M |
| 67 | Clallam | Washington | 17.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $26.3M |
| 68 | Mississippi * | Arkansas | 17.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $9.5M |
| 69 | Pacific | Washington | 17.4/50 | Relatively Moderate | $4.7M |
| 70 | Maricopa | Arizona | 17.3/50 | Relatively Moderate | $12.0M |
| 71 | St. Louis * | Missouri | 17.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $24.1M |
| 72 | St. Louis | Kansas | 17.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $24.1M |
| 73 | Lewis | Washington | 17.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $10.3M |
| 74 | Del Norte | California | 17.1/50 | Relatively Moderate | $35.3M |
| 75 | Clinton | New York | 17.1/50 | Relatively High | $9.7M |
| 76 | Cook * | Illinois | 17.1/50 | Relatively Moderate | $9.6M |
| 77 | Clatsop | Oregon | 17.1/50 | Relatively Moderate | $6.8M |
| 78 | Josephine | Oregon | 17.1/50 | Relatively Moderate | $6.4M |
| 79 | Jefferson * | Missouri | 17/50 | Relatively Low | $24.1M |
| 80 | San Benito | California | 16.9/50 | Relatively Moderate | $16.6M |
| 81 | New Madrid * | Missouri | 16.9/50 | Relatively Moderate | $5.0M |
| 82 | Clark | Washington | 16.8/50 | Relatively Moderate | $35.6M |
| 83 | Linn | Oregon | 16.8/50 | Relatively Moderate | $35.0M |
| 84 | McCracken * | Kentucky | 16.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $10.2M |
| 85 | Sutter | California | 16.5/50 | Relatively Moderate | $14.4M |
| 86 | Cowlitz | Washington | 16.3/50 | Relatively Moderate | $10.0M |
| 87 | Yolo | California | 15.8/50 | Relatively Moderate | $14.4M |
| 88 | Douglas | Nevada | 15.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $50.4M |
| 89 | Vanderburgh * | Indiana | 15.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $11.2M |
| 90 | Pima | Arizona | 15.7/50 | Relatively Moderate | $4.7M |
| 91 | Clackamas | Oregon | 15.4/50 | Relatively Moderate | $34.0M |
| 92 | Skagit | Nebraska | 15.4/50 | Relatively Moderate | $9.5M |
| 93 | Skagit | Washington | 15.4/50 | Relatively Moderate | $9.5M |
| 94 | St. Clair * | Illinois | 15.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $11.2M |
| 95 | Mason | Washington | 15.2/50 | Relatively Moderate | $7.0M |
| 96 | Suffolk | Massachusetts | 15.1/50 | Relatively Moderate | $4.3M |
| 97 | Kitsap | Washington | 15/50 | Relatively Moderate | $77.5M |
| 98 | Scott * | Missouri | 15/50 | Relatively Moderate | $7.1M |
| 99 | Tehama | California | 15/50 | Relatively Moderate | $6.0M |
| 100 | Horry | South Carolina | 15/50 | Relatively Moderate | $4.2M |
* = New Madrid Seismic Zone
Methodology
County rankings are based on average FEMA National Risk Index earthquake score across all ZIP codes in the county.
Data sources: FEMA National Risk Index, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. Last updated: 2026-06-04.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is earthquake risk calculated?
Earthquake risk scores (0-50) are from the FEMA National Risk Index, which combines seismic hazard exposure, community vulnerability, and expected losses. Higher scores indicate greater earthquake risk to people and property.
What is the New Madrid Seismic Zone?
The New Madrid Seismic Zone spans parts of Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Mississippi. The 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes (estimated M7.5-7.9) were among the strongest in U.S. history. This region remains seismically active, and most buildings were not designed to withstand major earthquakes.
Does earthquake risk affect home insurance?
Standard homeowners insurance does not cover earthquake damage. Separate earthquake insurance is required, and premiums vary significantly based on location, construction type, and proximity to fault lines.